Nevoic

You really think "part of nature" is a good argument for if something is morally acceptable? You can't think of anything that happens in the natural world that we choose not to do as civilized moral agents because it'd be wrong to do?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Building off this, people have to look at more than just the protests. "Radicals" shape the Overton Window, think Malcom X.

In a world where nobody protests and nobody is participating in radical activism, nothing changes. In a world where there are protests but still no radical activism, there is usually no change, though the media and capitalists will feign care and "listen to the issues". When the protesters become the moderates, the ruling class finally cedes some power to stop social revolution.

In a world where there are only radical activists, no moderate protesters or passive bystanders, there would be social revolution, monumental change. This has happened before, and it's why the ruling class concedes changes as the overton window becomes more radical.

To a lot of people this looks like "protests work!" but it's not the protests primarily, it's the threat of social revolution, led by the radicals and supported by the new moderate position of protesting against the status quo.

That's a pretty idealist take in the grand scheme of things. We have hard data that public opinion has virtually no influence on what the law is.

https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba

If it's something capitalists really want, it'll get put into law. In this case, it's possible they actually don't care to give the government the ability to surveil the public better, so it might be one of the very few things where public backlash could stop it (would actually need data to support this, not just some anecdotes).

Trying to apply this to the broader sociopolitical climate and saying "your voices do matter" is just too reductive. If it's the public vs. the capitalist class in American "democracy", the capitalist class wins every time.

"For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. "

A basic GPU will cost you $150-$250 dollars. A 1tb SSD will cost you $50, or the same price for a half terabyte nvme.

You can't even realistically get a proper HDD below $40, they just don't sell. You'd be best served at the $80 price point, getting either

• 1tb nvme
• 2tb SSD
• 4tb HDD

I'd suggest the nvme in this situation.

Israel has been in violation of the GCIV since 2007, it's been a globally recognized humanitarian crisis, and an extremely successful genocide/ethnic cleansing.

Israel has killed over 10x as many Palestinians compared to all pro-Palestinian groups combined (not just Hamas) since the year 2000. Since (and including) October 7th, Israel has killed 18,000 people (8000 children) Palestinians. Hamas has killed around 1200 people.

Maybe you think, like the Israeli defense minister that the killing of thousands of innocent children is justified because we're dealing with "human animals". The goal being to objectify Palestinians the same way we objectify non-human animals, so they can be slaughtered just as ruthlessly and effectively.

The formation of the genocidal state of Israel, which happened so recently that our current president was alive, involved the forceful removal and ethnic cleansing of almost a million native Palestinians.

We're far enough removed from the ethnic cleansing of native Americans in the U.S that most people recognize it was wrong for Europeans to invade, colonize, and genocide the native population, but when we see the exact same thing happening in our lifetimes, people like yourself happily back settler colonialism. It's genuinely fucking astounding.

You ignored or missed the main point of my comment. Do you think the entire world ends in 2027?

I admitted the country would be worse off between 2024-2028. But you entirely ignored the idea that we might get some concession from politicians if it's clear to them they lost due to being pro-genocide.

Do you think that's literally impossible? That even in a world where it's abundantly clear that being pro-genocide lost them 2024, that they'd definitely stay pro-genocide in 2028?

It's not clear what the better outcome is, unless you can only see 3 years out. If you're able to look 5+ years out, then a Republican winning in 2024 could mean an anti-genocide Democrat president in 2028 that wouldn't have won otherwise.

If it's clearly demonstrable that being anti-genocide would keep Democrats in power longer, that increases the chances they'd be anti-genocide.

I get that Americans aren't the ones being genocided, but some people understand that Palestinians have the same right to life as Americans, so it's fine to treat this as if there was an active genocide happening in America.

Both parties are pro-genocide, but one side might actually cave because their constituents are generally anti-genocide, while Republicans tend to be happy with it.

I see it as totally plausible that Biden loses 2024 because of a sharp drop in the support from anti-genocide leftists, and that it could end up being extremely clear to the Democrats in power that they need to concede this issue to us in 2028.

If Biden wins in 2024, it'd be a clear signal that their current strategy is working, just guilt everyone into voting for a Democrat no matter what, even if they're actively encouraging genocide.

If my desire is to stop the genocide of innocent Palestinians, is the liberal answer "shut the fuck up and vote for Biden, thanks"? Because that feels unsatisfactory.

There are coalitions of Muslims/leftists refusing to vote for Biden because of his pro-genocide stance. These people aren't claiming that Republicans will be the saviors of Palestine, rather they're speaking in the only language liberals understand. "Don't do what we want and we remove you from power".

Yes, 2024-2028 would be worse, but the hope is that losing an election due to being pro-genocide might make them anti-genocide.

It won't always be the same ones so I'm unsure of what you're asking. Which ones invaded the spaces I listed before?

For Revolutionary Catalonia it was the Nationalist Faction who overthrew them. They advocated for, and implemented, a form of national syndicalism that was "fully compatible with capitalism".

For Red Vienna is was the fascists who overturned the socialist policies and returned the city to a state of capitalism, allowing land-leeches and other bourgeoise to return to continue exploiting the working class.

No economic or political system can be shown to be practically achievable before it's been achieved. If you don't think the following examples are examples of genuine socialism/communism, then that's not an argument against the ideology.

We've had communists fight alongside other leftists. So revolutionary Catalonia was a functioning leftist space, meeting all the criteria to be called communist (classless/moneyless/stateless). It functioned incredibly well for a year before it was invaded.

If you want a longer, but smaller example, Red Vienna existed for about 2 decades and was a fully functional socialist space that improved worker's lives before being outlawed by a regime change.

If your position is that imperialist capitalist nations will always invade/outlaw well-functioning socialist/communist systems, you can't know that for sure, but it's definitely a possibility. That doesn't mean the entire idea is worth throwing away.

Your stance still needs to change then. Your issue isn't comparing wage slavery with chattel slavery, it's comparing slavery when the standard of living has improved.

Now this stance is still problematic, imagine we lost the civil war and the north became socialist, abolishing wage slavery. The south would have chattel slavery and the north would have no slavery. Now imagine the standard of living for chattel slaves vastly improved, and someone then tried to compare "modern day chattel slaves to wage slaves". Your stance would then be this is wildly unfair to modern day chattel slaves because wage slaves had a worse standard of living, a position we both understand is ridiculous.

You know I'm a communist, and I'd actually wager we would agree on your stance here if you chose better words. What you're actually advocating against is state capitalism, and we both agree it's a horrific and unjust system.

Something I've noticed about "anti-communists" is they absolutely love taking the USSR, CCP, and DPRK at their word for what they are. When they describe themselves as communist/socialist, you take it as an undeniable fact.

Do you think the DPRK is a democratic republic? It's in the name. Of course you don't, because it'd be ridiculous to let an authoritarian regime change the definitions of words to mean whatever they want it to mean :)